Stoking Curiosity 2018 Evaluation Report

(Artistic credit: More than Minutes, www.morethanminutes.co.uk)

1Prepared by Penny Vincent and Lotika Singha, with input from Oliver Hyam, Nicola Gratton, Kerry Jones and members of the Stoking Curiosity 2018 steering group.

1 Penny is Senior Lecturer for Community Engagement and Community Partnerships, Staffordshire University, Lotika is Public Engagement with Research Fellow, Keele University, Oliver is an undergraduate geography student at Staffordshire University, Nicola is Lead for Cultural and Connected Community Engagement, Staffordshire University, and Kerry is Arts and Public Engagement Officer, Keele University.

Page | 1

Introduction Festivals ‘can be a fun and effective opportunity to engage with the public, making the most of the knowledge and talents of staff and students’ (National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, 20182). Furthermore, a festival of ideas can enable higher education institutions to become cultural anchors for the communities they serve, animating languishing city and town spaces. The first Stoking Curiosity festival was held on 16 and 17 November 2018 at three sites within the historic Spode Works factory regeneration area in Stoke-on-Trent. It was led by Keele University and Staffordshire University and co-produced with input from local organisations, the people of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, and Stoke-on-Trent City Council. This evaluation report starts with an overview of the development of the concept underpinning the festival, and its aims, objectives and process. Then follows an analysis of the programme, visitor demographics, presenters and visitors’ festival experience, and what we could have done better. The concluding section reflects on the delivery and experience of the festival in terms of the original objectives and the civic university agenda. The report ends with specific recommendations that will enable the festival to grow into an annual, collaborative, popular public engagement event in the cultural calendar of the city of Stoke-on-Trent. From stoking ideas to Stoking Curiosity A festival of ideas at Stoke-on-Trent was first referenced in consultations on the city’s cultural strategy during the early legacy period of the Stoke 2021 City of Culture bid (2016–2018),3 when the city was actively planning for a series of festivals. It was noted that Stoke-on-Trent was the only large city in the UK that did not have a yearly festival of ideas. An opportunity arose in 2018 as part of the remit of the SEEK-PER4 project at Keele University. Given the project’s ethos to embed public engagement in research in Keele, with a focus on co-production and creativity, the project team proposed a university-led festival with a similar commitment. Practically, this became possible in May 2018, and a steering group comprising 15 people (Appendix A) was set up to take this forward. Seven members were affiliated with Keele and Staffordshire Universities. One member represented Stoke-on-Trent Council, and three members were part of the Cultural Forum, representing the city’s wider arts and cultural sector. Two members represented organisations and

2 https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/do-engagement/choose-method/festivals 3 The Cultural Forum, which developed as part of bid, comprises a number of organisations and Task and Finish groups. Holding a festival of ideas was part of the discussion in the remit of the Programming Group. 4 In September 2017, Keele was only one of seven universities to be awarded the Research Councils UK (RCUK) two-year Strategic Support to Expedite Embedding Public Engagement with Research (SEE-PER) grant (https://www.ukri.org/public-engagement/research-council-partners-and-public-engagement-with- research/embedding-public-engagement/strategic-support-to-expedite-embedding-public-engagement-with- research/), with oversight from the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement. Being part of this programme provided Keele the necessary springboard for launching the process of embedding public engagement with research in its wider research cultures and activities. Since then, the RCUK has developed into UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). We use the term UKRI in the rest of the report.

Page | 2 community groups working with marginalised social groups and two people were lay members of a community-university action network. The steering group agreed to avoid a ‘template’ approach for the kinds of knowledge that could be shared between academia and community at the festival. Rather, the festival would be a space for developing and nurturing partnerships and relationships for research using a range of innovative methodologies from co-production to outreach, among academia, the general public(s), specific community groups, and non-academic organisations. In this way, the festival would showcase the wide-ranging potential of higher education while providing a platform for non- academics, including people from the arts and cultural sector, to share knowledge, knowledge production and creativity in a university–community engagement space. Hence, instead of a ‘festival of ideas’, the group considered an approach centred on curiosity. As curiosity is rooted in ‘ideas’, this approach would encourage development of co-produced and creative research methodologies through audience participation in those ideas. This approach would also allow space for diversity in the programme and knowledge sharing through meaningful and responsible engagement. Finally, it would enable people to think and explore things that they otherwise may not be exposed to or hesitate to try or have an opportunity to experience. We chose ‘Stoking Curiosity’ as the title, as it stoked the festival’s aspiration to embed the connections between Keele and Staffordshire Universities and the local communities across Stoke- on-Trent and Staffordshire and beyond. The historic Spode pottery in the town of Stoke was selected as the festival site. The spirit behind the redevelopment at the derelict factory site is about looking to the future while celebrating the past. With a history of more than 300 years of continuous pottery production, Spode Works continues to be associated with innovation and creativity. Today, it houses several site partners, including the Spode Museum Trust, the Potbank (including aparthotel), ACAVA studios, the Clay Foundation (British Ceramics Biennial), Friends of Spode Rose Garden, CentreSpace Gallery and Paul Adamiec Ceramics. Spode Museum Trust is custodian of the world-class Spode Collection that includes ceramic items, hand-engraved copper plates and extensive paper archives and pattern books. The Museum Trust is working with the National Trust regarding next-step opportunities for the Collection and Museum. The Potbank development comprises the buildings housing Spode’s design and decorating workshops in the 1800s, which were built on a rich seam of broken pottery accumulating over decades. When the buildings were acquired by the Dog and Bone Group in 2017, they were occupied by pigeons, a grand piano and plants growing through walls, with badly leaking roofs. With the internal walls stripped back to their early 19th-century brickwork, renewable energy heating and recycled rainwater from its rooftops, the Potbank is a good example of sustainable regeneration. The Spode Works ACAVA studios opened in 2016 and are part of the educational charity ‘Association for Cultural Advancement through Visual Art’, established in 1983 to support the development and practice of the visual arts. ACAVA provides facilities to professional artists and encourages them to develop public art and projects to benefit

Page | 3 their communities. This rich mix of heritage and contemporary excellence is a unique opportunity for sustainable social, cultural and economic development. Discussions with the various constituencies at the factory site revealed enthusiasm for developing deeper interconnections between themselves as well as with the universities and other local communities and organisations through a public engagement festival. A two-day festival was planned to allow exploring the possibilities and desired outcomes and demonstrate our ability to work together and deliver. As the festival would not be about knowledge curation, but about enabling academics and communities to engage in creative ways to create impact on ‘place’ and in various other ways, the partnerships developed in the first year could be built on to embark on a rolling programme for a gradually scaled up annual festival event. Festival aim, objectives and outcomes The festival vision translated into an overarching aim of demonstrating the social value of academic research and its relevance to real lives, with three-way objectives: 1. For academics, it would be a public engagement platform to:  present research to a diverse or more specific non-academic audience that would not usually have access to this research;  expand their academic knowledge base with new learnings gained through conversations with ‘different’ audiences; and  demonstrate to the university senior management the value of embedding public engagement in the university’s wider research strategy. 2. For the festival audiences, it would be an opportunity:  to engage, ask questions, have a voice, give opinions, and be curious;  to develop greater interest in the arts, sciences and humanities, particularly among those publics who do not usually engage with higher education;  to increase understanding of the value of academic research at Keele and Staffordshire Universities among their local communities; and  to find out more about how higher education can benefit them or their families/children. 3. For community partners, including the arts and cultural sector, it would be a platform to:  build or strengthen networks and connections among themselves as well as with the universities for mutual benefit in the long-term;  increase their visibility and reinforce their value and place among their communities; and  gain or deepen public support for their publicly oriented and research-based work. In the long term, it was anticipated, these objectives would lead to:  ‘humanising’ academia by shifting (mis)perceptions and developing mutual respect between academia and other groups:  for people and community partners to recognise higher education institutions as open and inquiring spaces; and  for academics to appreciate how sharing ideas and research can improve the quality and social value of both the research process and its outcomes;

Page | 4

 capacity building in communities through activities that stimulated and deepened thinking and idea formations; and  fostering mentoring for those unwilling or hesitant to engage with higher education. Festival theme: ‘let many flowers bloom’ In part due to lack of time and resources, the steering group agreed to take an approach encouraging a breadth of interdisciplinary interactions between academic research and communities, with no headline speaker. The festival would be a space where all presenters were keynotes in their own right.

A Staffordshire University Comic Art

student’s depiction of the interdisciplinary approach to stimulate people’s curiosity and creativity at Stoking Curiosity (Artistic

credit: Adara Gibson)

A curious programme: ‘the pairing of the futuristic hand and the current prosthetics was fascinating’ (Visitor)

Given the direction taken by the steering group, the call for proposals simply asked ‘What are you curious about?’ and ‘What makes your proposal exciting?’. Proposers were also asked to provide information about their target age group, and whether the proposal was for a general or specific audience, and how they would engage with the audience (type and duration of activity). The main criteria for selection were: an element of curiosity and intention for audience participation.

A Staffordshire University comic art student’s illustration of an impactful visit to the prosthetics activity, where visitors could also try their hand at making a plaster mould of an artificial limb. (Artistic credit: Ryan Gillgrass; Photo Credit: Nursing and Midwifery Keele Page | 5 University (@NandM_Keele))

The call for proposals (Appendix B) was advertised within the universities as well as in the community, predominantly through social media, university audio-visual screens and email newsletters, and via email lists and word of mouth of the steering group. The proposal form was made available online, via a dedicated festival page on the ArtsKeele website.5 The steering group acknowledged that this would exclude some people from participating and would be addressed in future festivals. A total of 56 proposals were received. The most common way of hearing about the call was internal university communications (Figure 1), and this method was particularly successful in Staffordshire University. The Keele University presenters were primarily those who were invited to participate by the Keele fraction of the steering group or who heard about the festival in other ways (e.g. Facebook and word of mouth). Hence, we will need to rethink our publicity channels in Keele for future festivals. In all, the majority of presenters heard about the event via email or word of mouth. For this year, we did not record presenter demographics.

University interal communication

Word of mouth or e-communication by steering group member Other word of mouth (a community member) or e- communication (community network email lists) Invitation from steering group

Facebook

Site partners

Twitter

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Figure 1: Hearing about the call.

The steering group overwhelmingly agreed that most proposals appeared to satisfy our two broad criteria. Only a few proposers were asked to confirm audience participation. Some raised concerns such as requiring a safe space for the proposed discussion. Several activities required risk assessment. Eventually, nine proposals were withdrawn, one did not respond, and three workshops were agreed but did not attract any visitors. Thus, in all, the festival programme included 43 activities (Appendix C): 16 were presented by university academics and 25 by community members (freelance or employed in a range of fields, from medicine to administrative

5 Neither leaflets advertising the call out nor paper versions of the application form were used due to the limited timeframe for festival planning and delivery (six months).

Page | 6 work to the arts and culture sector). Two activities were academic–community partnership events. The arts and culture sector represented the most significant proportion of the activities (10 activities) suggested by community members. Clearly, the festival was embraced with greater enthusiasm by the community than by the academics. This might be a reflection of the publicity approach at Keele University as well as that this university was – unusually – holding the event off campus. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many staff and students at Keele had either not heard of or been to the Spode factory site. ‘This is a really long awaited chance to meet people and show them what we’re doing at Keele, work kind of hidden away on the hill. We don’t get out much and it’s really good to be in Stoke.’ (Presenter) Over half of the activities (24 activities) had interdisciplinary themes or methodologies (Figure 2 and Appendix C).

Figure 2: The interdisciplinary core of Stoking Curiosity.

Most commonly, the presenters proposed to use the creative arts to engage the audience with their field(s) of interest. Of these, ten activities aimed to demonstrate the science underpinning an art or an application of the confluence of arts and sciences (e.g. the Art and Science of Prosthetics, and Arts by Prescription, ACAVA artists’ work). Of the remaining activities, eight represented the art and culture sector and one was a health and well-being activity, while the rest represented traditional academic fields from the humanities and natural sciences.

Page | 7

An artist explaining the chemistry of glass art (Image credit: Jake Hall) and chemists stimulating interest in the periodic table through make-your-own pottery tiles (Image credit: Katherine Haxton).

The activities were delivered in a range of ways. Workshops (18; Figure 3) and discussions (16; Figure 4) were the most popular mode of presentation, followed by interactive exhibits (7). Two discussions were accompanied by a workshop and two had accompanying exhibitions. Other modes were: consultations (4), exhibitions (2) and installations (2). Some workshops were all-day activities and others lasted one to three hours. The majority of workshops (12/18) were offered by community members or artists, and most were interdisciplinary (12/18). Five of the six workshops offered by academics were interdisciplinary. The most common disciplines offered as a workshop were the social sciences. As all the five academic-led interdisciplinary workshops were well attended, there appears to be a need to encourage more academics at our universities to design innovative workshops to create or share research-related knowledge, and – where appropriate – in partnership with artists or other community members.

Computer science Social sciences

Single Arts and culture disciplinary Geography, English and creative art Psychology and creative art Education and creative art Economics and creative art Social sciences, creative arts and culture

Creative writing and culture Interdisciplinary Social sciences, creative arts, culture, and activism Chemistry and creative arts

0 1 2 3

Figure 3: Intra- and interdisciplinary workshops

Three workshops, of which two were led by academics, did not attract visitors. Others were well received, as indicated by their presenters.

Page | 8

‘I've had lots of people show interest in the workshop since it took place (it was the first time we'd run it). There is definitely an appetite for this kind of session.’ (Presenter) We had two terrific days! We learned a lot from the public about who struggles with which aspects of plastics and our local recycling schemes. We found (Artistic credit: Lindsey Vigurs; Image: Katy Vigurs) different levels of awareness and receptivity and willingness to engage, in-depth, with the detail of plastics for waste management. We were able to formulate research questions and exercises better targeted across our core publics. We would definitely do more days like these as research activities, adding in a short sorting exercise and/or questionnaire (on an iPad, with pictures) to generate different kinds of data.’ (Presenter) (Artistic credit: More than Minutes)

Community members (7/16) and academics (9/16) were almost equally likely to offer discussions, and in both groups half were interdisciplinary (4/7 and 5/9, respectively).

‘[The] engaged and knowledgeable audience made the discussion quite enjoyable – although most of the contributions where from 3 audience members – others seemed happier to listen.’ (Presenter)

Audience participation in a psychology-based discussion on children’s creative potential: (Artistic credit: Maria Rosa Da Luz)

The humanities and sciences were both well represented among the discussions (6/16) followed by the social sciences (4/16). Health and well-being was the focus of three discussions. Two of these, were offered flexibly – the presenters were open to either having a participatory discussion or a workshop and the choice was made by us to allow maximum activities to be included in the programme. Hence, this breakdown is not a definitive account of the possibilities in presentation of research and the arts, or other curiosity-sparking activities in future festivals.

Page | 9

Social sciences and activism Chemistry and creative arts History, arts and culture Health and well-being and ICT/creative arts and…

Interdisciplinary Computer science and neuroscience Psychology Social sciences Creative writing History

Singledisciplinary Arts and culture

0 1 2 3

Figure 5: Areas offered as discussions. *Health and well-being and ICT/creative arts and culture/social sciences.

Five of the seven interactive exhibits were offered by academics (two in partnership with community members). Four were interdisciplinary, of which three were essentially science exhibits. Three of the seven were from the geographical sciences.

[This is a] fantastic opportunity for people like me, academics … … an opportunity to show off something which is really happening in Stoke, something which has been happening in the last five or six years, especially in a derelict space like Spode Works, which has really been a fulcrum for some of the fantastic and exciting artistic work and community work going on in the area. … I’d like there to be a little bit more in the way of joined work between University–community partnership interactive exhibit ‘Feral Futures’: the universities and academic groups in the area (Image credit: Jake Hall) and local activists in Stoke. … I sense in Stoke there’s a certain movement around the use of derelict sites and disused areas for artistic and community purposes. But at the moment it’s a little bit disjointed …. So it feels to me that this is a real opportunity to bring everyone together and to start thinking about how this might be something bigger that the sum of its parts.’ (Presenter) All the consultations were offered by community members on a range of topics (arts and culture, use of derelict urban spaces, education, health and well-being).

Page | 10

One installation was an art feature and the other was interdisciplinary (poetry installation) and was accompanied by a poetry workshop. Visitors engaging with an Finally, five art installation (Image artists at credit: Jake Hall) ACAVA opened their studios to the public to demonstrate their artistic approaches, all of which included blended techniques (e.g. modern laser engraving with traditional craftsmanship, and colour mixing in the creation of multi- media art) or showcased a blend of art and science (e.g. the chemistry behind colour in fused glass products), and others contributed to an exhibition of curiosities displayed in the ACAVA common space.

Comic art representation of the various activities, including an artist in her studio (Artistic credit: Conner)

As mentioned above, three workshops did not attract any visitors. All three were assigned to the two rooms in Spode Museum, and it is likely the location of the rooms, which were away from the main hub of activity in the museum, and the lack of briefing of the museum’s own volunteers about the event had a role here. Other workshops in the same rooms attracted modest numbers of visitors (Appendix D). The interactive exhibits and the art exhibition attracted a steady stream of visitors throughout the day on both days (range 65–300 over two days). The bar-based science talks (20 people per talk), and the half-day art and the creative workshops (range 10–49) also attracted good numbers of people. Other activities were meant for smaller numbers (e.g. the timed workshops; Appendix D). The discussions had significantly larger audiences on the first day (up to 25 people), but on the second day most had between 4 and 10 attendees. Numbers visiting the ACAVA studios were not recorded, but the debrief meeting suggested they had been lower than expected.

The curious people Volunteers We recruited student and staff volunteers primarily from Keele University, as well as lay volunteers for the festival. Thirty-two Keele students expressed interest in the call out but eventually only seven participated. This might be because the volunteers were not paid for their

Page | 11 Student volunteer explaining the 2050 Energy Calculator and biomass facility at the festival site to visitors (Image credit: Jake Hall) time (which might have resulted in greater commitment) and also because this was the first time Keele was holding such an event. Two geography students from both universities signed up specifically for facilitating a sustainability activity, but eventually only the Staffordshire University students participated. About 20 students from Staffordshire University’s Cartoon and Comic Arts department came to document the festival by sketching their reflections about the events they attended on the first day of the festival, some of which are reproduced in this report. Twelve Keele staff (academics and professional services), of whom two were members of the steering group, volunteered to cover as fire wardens over the two days. Five members of the public were recruited through word of mouth or community network social media or email call-outs, or were part of the steering group. Visitors We used clicker counters to count visitors at four of the five entry/exit points into the festival. One entry/exit point (through the café) was not monitored due to oversight and lack of monitoring capacity. Also, since at least two entry/exit points were also used by other people entering and exiting the sites (hotel guests at the Potbank, theatre personnel, cast and attendees for the Claybody Theatre matinee performance on Saturday, museum visitors, The Canteen café customers) the numbers are estimates. This is a factor we will revisit for the next festival. Given the above limitations, we estimate we had a total of 300 visitors over the two days (Appendix E). The visitors who gave feedback (Appendix F) came from mostly central and northern areas of Stoke-on-Trent, as well as from Newcastle-under-Lyme (on the west of Stoke-on-Trent) and Stone (south of Stoke-on-Trent). Two visitors came from Greater Manchester after seeing a Tweet about the bio-engineering exhibit and the workshop on communication around death. All age groups from young children to 65+ years were represented, although the majority were young and middle-aged adults. The Staffordshire University Cartoon and Comic Arts student volunteers and art students from Newcastle Sixth Form College, who had been invited by a staff member and participating artist, formed the majority of young adult visitors.

The Dust Rising Collective’s exhibition attracted both younger and older visitors (Image credits: Jake Hall)

Page | 12

The majority of visitors were white British (among the recorded data, there was one person each from the Asian Chinese, Black African and Latino ethnic groups; includes observational assumption made by the organisers). Twice as many female visitors as male visitors filled the feedback, and very few people were non-binary gender, or had a disability or long-term illness or were family carers. Most visitors already had a higher education background (Appendix F). This may not be representative of the total number of visitors, although our data are in line with those reported in other public engagement festival evaluation reports (Being Human festival (2016)6; Cambridge Festival of Ideas (20087, 20118, 20139)). The festival experience Owing to unexpected logistical issues that arose on the day – the location of the feedback activity was too close to the main entrance rather than the exit point from the main site – we gathered less feedback from the visitors than we had aimed to collect. Approximately 15 per cent of the visitors provided feedback (27 filled our feedback postcards and eight filled the online feedback form). However, over half of the presenters gave feedback (almost equal numbers of academics and community presenters) on their experience of doing an activity at the festival. Two of the 26 people who responded were those whose activities had no visitors and they provided reflective comments on the reasons for this from their point of view. Besides the university staff, five members of the steering group were closely involved in the planning and delivery of the festival, of whom four provided feedback of their experience. Several presenters and volunteers also attended the rest of (Image credit: Jake Hall) the festival as visitors, hence their feedback also in part reflects visitor experience. Ten people (seven presenters and three visitors were interviewed by an on- site media company for a post-festival film) using the same questions that were asked in the post card. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent), the four steering group members who gave feedback said that

6 Evaluation Report, Being Human 2016 (https://beinghumanfestival.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/07/Being-Human-2016-Evaluation-Report.pdf). 7 https://www.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.cam.ac.uk/files/2008_evaluation_compendium.pdf 8 https://www.cam.ac.uk/files/2011_evaluation.pdf 9 https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/2013_festival_of_ideas_evaluation_compendium.pdf

Page | 13 the festival delivered in terms of being co-produced (8/10).

‘Very positive and trusting collaborative preparation, where team members were clear about their own agreed responsibilities in preparation for and throughout the event’. (Steering group member) All these members enjoyed their ‘new’ experience of being part of such a festival’s varied steering group. Words featuring commonly in the visitor feedback were ‘different’, ‘think’, ‘ideas’, ‘brilliant’, ‘opportunity’, suggesting that Stoking Curiosity is an event which can boast uniqueness and offer something unexpected in a positive way. Four themes were consistently evident in the feedback from visitors, presenters and volunteers.  curiosity as a lever to encourage learning and higher education;  partnership building: fostering interdisciplinary connections and possibilities;  rewarding engagement; and  demonstrating the cultural potential of the site and city. Most of the experience related to these themes that was reported was positive. A few people found the eclectic mix confusing, but this appeared to be related to the issues with signage. One presenter commented that this approach might have discouraged some people – whom we had particularly wanted to target – from attending the event.

‘[I felt t]hat Stoking Curiosity did not quite know what it was yet, that it was a conference- come-festival-come-public engagement type event. It felt as if it was trying to do and be everything, but perhaps forgot that the public Stoking Curiosity was trying to attract do not usually attend those types of events. I think it needs to be simpler, and decide clearly on what it is.‘ (Presenter) However, the lack of promoting the event uniformly through the city might have been a bigger reason for a lack of diversity in the audience. There were two areas where there was overwhelming agreement that we fell short:  publicity and promotion of the event; and  the programme guide, signage and a lack of volunteer presence between the three parts of the festival site, to guide people quickly and efficiently to areas of interest. These and a few other issues are discussed in detail later.

Page | 14

Curiosity as a lever to encourage learning and higher education ‘It’s made me want to go home and kind of look at my art, and try to do something a little bit different. Coz I already do art, so looking at different medias is always very helpful and gives you more open mind, instead of sticking to your usual stuff. So think outside the box a little bit more.’ (Visitor)

The positive impact of the ‘curiosity’ approach of the festival to motivate and encourage people to think outside the box, to be inspired to learn something new or different also came through strongly in the feedback reported by the presenters as they interacted with their audiences. Many presenters also reported that they found visitors to their activities genuinely curious, eager to learn more as well find out why the activity was being done. They asked questions and interacted or participated with enthusiasm, rather than just observing or (Image credit: Deirdre McKay) being receptacles for information ‘I was glad to see general public understanding science and asking questions to the researchers.’ (Presenter)

Page | 15

People were much more eager to ask questions than give opinions or observations. There were some great comments and a lot of thoughtful questions. I think the people who attended the festival brought genuine curiosity. I saw it in everywhere! (Presenter) My computing topic was relevant and the members of the public I met were interested in how it did affect their day to day lives. (Presenter)

Both the site and the activities ‘stoked’ people’s curiosity. Activities named in particular in the feedback were: the use of plastics, the chemistry of glass art, the clay counter currency project, Arts on Prescription, the periodic table (Pottery about Chemistry) and the Stoking Curiosity piano creative art project. One visitor found the topics covered at the festival Word clouds: left panel: postcard feedback; right panel: interviews ‘intriguing’, and others thought the science talks were ‘great’. The academic–community tied approach also meant that the festival space presented both direct and indirect opportunities to potentially inspire people to think about higher education. ‘There are a lot of very informed artificial limb users who would be willing to discuss their lives and difficulties to improve awareness of living with disabilities in a positive way. … We were also able to demonstrate how artificial legs work and are manufactured. … We don’t do research but hopefully some of the children and some college students may remember this activity when they start to make career choices.’ (Presenter) ‘Well, children have curiosity, don’t they? They keep saying why? Why daddy? You know, and I think this is what’s err, universities and colleges should be, you know, are there to do for people and the populace, and I think having these exhibitions like this and things like this, gets people awakened to the potential of life, and being curious about life, rather than just accepting what we’ve been told by people who are ignorant.’ (Presenter)

One comment indicated that there would always be activities that might attract fewer people, but the quality of that interaction could prove valuable. ‘Although it was a small audience, they seemed quite engaged’ (Presenter) Partnership building: fostering interdisciplinary connections and possibilities Our call out had encouraged people from all walks of life and backgrounds to submit proposals. This broad approach to curiosity made the festival a space where an award-winning UKRI-funded research installation alongside demonstrations of creativity by non-academic members of the public provided an enriching experience for many presenters and visitors.

Page | 16

(Artistic credit: More than Minutes)

‘The level of interest generated from all ages was great for us to see. There was no specific age demographic who had a majority on the day.’ (Presenter) ‘The space was really nice, and it was great having both science and arts exhibits. This means that some of our visitors were artists and may not have come to talk to us in a different setting.’ (Presenter) Interdisciplinary networking at the event was reported between presenters as well as between presenters and members of the public. ‘I made some good contacts for example with the BCB workshop, Singing for Lung Health, Wonder Women, a Stoke sports/writing/art project and a PHD student working on social prescribing. [X] (Image credit: Jake Hall) from the council sent apologies and we have exchanged emails and he has suggested relevant people at the council to engage with on social prescribing. (Presenter) ‘The one thing that is becoming really clear to me is that there are a lot of people in the local area with similar goals and motivation. I feel that by being better able to connect with them, we can better serve the community. I like the idea of making better use of local knowledge by connecting, particularly around the art-heritage-science interface.’ (Presenter) ‘It was such a great opportunity to find the common threads between seemingly opposite fields. The cross pollination was inspiring.’ (Presenter) (Image credit) Several presenters reported the possibility of new avenues or ideas for future work as well as new relationships or partnerships through their conversations with other presenters and visitors. The informal environment of the festival provided a ‘sense of community’ and enabled access between

Page | 17 people who might not have otherwise contacted each other. The mixing of educational groups with artists was considered a key strength of the event, making the festival a significant place for wider engagement not just for academic research but also for local artists. ‘Good to get opportunity to discuss relevant issues connected to the city about art and culture. Public were engaged and interested to see what might be done to improve this offer. … The opportunity for artists to show their work in Wedgwood cabinets at the Spode site was exciting for most.’ (Presenter) ‘I think making connections with people in local universities is beneficial to all party's . I'm going to do some work with a professor of robotics from Keele in the near future . Arranging a meeting soon . ,!’ (Presenter) The possibility of new partnerships with academics or community members for mutual benefit was also reported by presenters representing community organisations and businesses that were already engaged in or interested in doing research around their areas of interest, or in harnessing the potential of creativity.

‘Events like Stoking curiosity are also a fantastic platform for us to exhibit what we do and generate new business.’ (Presenter) ‘We did give information leaflets for the nearest college providing training for prosthetists (Salford University)’ (Presenter) Finally, people noted how universities could improve on their public engagement practice, including collaboration between themselves, to benefit academic research as well their communities. Suggestions included partnership building around knowledge exchange and involving a range of publics, treating people/organisations as partners rather than subjects, and having events such as Stoking Curiosity:

‘[I] felt that Keele uni was a bit closer to Stoke, and that is pretty important.’ (Presenter) ‘My local university should connect with small business owners’ (Visitor) ‘Communities benefit from their uni when people with learning disabilities are involved’ (Visitor) ‘I would visit my uni more if there were more activities’ (Visitor)

‘I would feel more involved if they made us equal - more friendly . Can turn up anytime’ (Visitor)

In the interviews, views on benefits for community included increased access, knowledge, skills, openness, opportunities, new ideas and cultural growth.

Page | 18

Both visitors and presenters also listed several skills they had and which could enrich university–community partnerships for mutual benefit. A significant point here, as evident from the word cloud is the possibility of improving academic research processes and outcomes through engaging with arts and creative practices available in the community

Rewarding engagement Some academic presenters at this festival were familiar with public engagement, as they had been doing it already. For others it was a first opportunity. In both cases, the festival provided them a space to take this forward in a way that would be helpful to their research. They reported gaining from audience interaction in their area of interest, both in terms of making the activity itself a success and for their own development.

‘We were able to formulate research questions and exercises better targeted across our core publics. We would definitely do more days like these as research activities, adding in a short sorting exercise and/or questionnaire (on an iPad, with pictures) to generate different kinds of data.’ (Presenter)

‘I really enjoyed to see how thankful and encouraged people were with all the scientific talks! … I also consider that Stoking Curiosity has helped us to figure out which things are essential for the next event of Pint of Science.’ (Presenter) (Image credit: Kerry Jones) ‘We were quite amazed how some people regard their social responsibility to end with the people of Stoke on Trent. One attendee and one person on social media questioned what our organisation was doing to address issues in Stoke (i.e. we have homelessness in Stoke and charity begins at home). This helped us have some reflections and discussions about how we might frame our future conversations with local people at a time of austerity and uncertainty’ (Presenter) One presenter for whom it would have been a new experience did not attract any visitors to her workshop. However, being at the festival gave her a chance to reflect on this and how she might approach engaging the public with her research interest next time.

Page | 19

Demonstrating the cultural potential of the site and city The choice of site for the festival received many comments. Stoke-on-Trent has a reputation of being a place where ‘nothing happens’, where the six towns that make up the city refuse to ‘come together’, preferring to maintain their own identities. There were some logistical issues with the site (see later), which we can address in future festivals. However, on the whole the idea of a festival of ideas in the city, and in Spode Works itself, was considered a positive step forward for both. ‘[I felt] connected, valued, happy, safe, bit cold!’ (Visitor)

‘[I felt] happy, enthused, pleased I live in a place with so many committed and supportive people’ (Visitor)

Word cloud: interviews ‘I think it’s an extremely encouraging idea. The area is a very crazy place, a little bit sort of feels like it’s been left behind and there’s no reason why it should feel like that. The fact that different disciplines are coming together, it’s like having cats that do or don’t talk to each other – very significant and we can move forward if people start talking to each other and working together…’ (Presenter)

‘… and actually I’m blown away by the facility here. I’d seen mention of the Potbank and café, and the refurbishment in the factory here … a couple of years back but the quality of the accommodation, the facilities, the conference rooms, meeting rooms, I’ll certainly be back. This is a great facility for Stoke to have.’ (Presenter) The promotion of arts and culture in the city alongside their educational ramifications at the festival was exemplified by the in-festival ceramic renovation of a 1920s Bechstein grand piano by a celebrated local artist commissioned by Keele University. A Keele media student completed her work experience by working alongside the artist and also photo-documenting the process. This activity was reported by an online magazine showcasing arts and culture in Stoke-on-Trent and the surrounding area.10 During the planning stage, the steering group had acknowledged that the broad remit of (Image credit: Christine Leung)

the festival may not appeal to everyone, and the experience may be uncomfortable for some. Still, a positive festival experience was noted by many people who gave feedback. This does not demonstrate a lack of reflexivity, as the feedback also included constructive criticism about various aspects of the festival.

10 https://www.babababoon.co.uk/philip-hardaker-a-stoke-on-trent-ceramic-genius/

Page | 20

What we could have done better Festival promotion There was overwhelming agreement that we, as well as the presenters themselves, fell short on promoting the festival both within the universities and in the communities, in part which was due to the short time in which the festival was planned and delivered. We were already aware that the festival was not appropriately publicised to the communities that are ‘easy to avoid’. We use this term as proposed by a steering group member, who has often pointed out that ‘hard to reach’ is a euphuism for easily missed out. As discussed in various debrief meetings with our site and council partners, this will require a well-thought out campaign involving the city council and community ambassadors as well as formally inviting schoolchildren from various areas of the city to the festival. Given the constraints of time and resources, we relied on easier-to-use Twitter methods of publicising via Facebook, Word of mouth Twitter, emailing contacts, university email Facebook lists, newsletters and audio-visual screens. Relevant email lists We also distributed pamphlets close to the Instagram time, but the area of reach was limited. We Social media not specified asked presenters to publicise their own Leaflets activity and they used the same methods Website (Figure 5), which also indicated a strong None keenness among the presenters to promote Newsletter the festival. Overall these modes of 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 publicity generated considerable interest in a very short period of time. For instance Figure 5: Methods used to spread the word by the Stoking Curiosity Twitter feed acquired presenters 175 followers over three days, 134 likes and 103 tweets were generated including the #stokingcurios.11 The Facebook page hosted by the Creative Communities Unit at Staffordshire University12 and the page hosted by ArtKeele13 elicited interest from 420 and 95 people, respectively (note: there was some overlap here). The event was also publicised on the council ‘What’s on’ and ‘Enjoy Staffordshire’ webpages,14 the local Sentinel newspaper15 and Six Towns radio website,16 and by the Keele and North Staffs Teacher Education website.17 Keele’s pro-vice chancellor for research and enterprise and another member of the public, both of whom were members of the steering group, were interviewed by BBC Radio Stoke

11 https://twitter.com/StokingCurios 12 https://www.facebook.com/events/270972570320152/ 13 https://www.facebook.com/events/1777469445708542/ 14 https://www.visitstoke.co.uk/whats-on/stoking-curiosity-p908381; https://www.enjoystaffordshire.com/whats-on/stoking-curiosity-p908381 15 https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/whats-on/stoking-curiosity-festival-spark-ideas-2211718 16 http://www.6towns.co.uk/2018/11/stoking-curiosity-festival-to-showcase-and-spark-ideas/ 17 https://knste-shaw.org.uk/events/stoking-curiosity/

Page | 21 on the breakfast show on the second day of the festival. All these data suggest a great deal of efficacy in use of social media to promote the festival more generally. Last-minute tweets or emails to attract audiences for individual sessions proved less effective (one of these sessions was a workshop that attracted no visitors and one was a discussion session that attracted three people only). Our experience is similar to that reported by more established festivals. Nearly nine in ten (87 per cent) visitors at the 2011 Cambridge Festival of Ideas evaluation did not ‘like’ the festival on Facebook or follow the festival on Twitter although the webpages showed 1,510 Facebook and 814 Twitter followers. Only 2 per cent of the visitors had heard of the festival on social media. The 2016 Being Human festival had 6,000 Twitter followers but an estimated audience of 30,000. That is, only 7.6 per cent of attendees heard of the festival through social media. Most heard of it through word of mouth (38 per cent) followed by email/direct mailing (21 per cent). Hence, it is likely that non-electronic media remain crucially important to engage various sections of the public. This is not because they may not be using social media, but that these media do not necessarily build the connections across communities that are needed to enthuse people to attend events in the first instance. Rather they may be more appropriate for nurturing the connections that are first made face to face or to serve as additional methods of publicity instead of as the main channel. The printed programme and signage We were approached by a community artist who wanted to make signs out of recyclable ‘rubbish’ dotted around the Spode site, which could be re-used at future festivals. We had both positive and negative feedback on the eclectic signage. Some people commented that they enjoyed the challenge posed by it. ‘I spent a couple of hours there and loved how eclectic it was. I liked the venue, too. I often found myself a little (Image credit: Jake Hall) bewildered but in a way I liked. I enjoyed popping from talk to talk, and from table to table never quite knowing what I would find.’ (Presenter/Visitor) ‘… well signposted/well directed/creative atmosphere’ (Visitor)

But others were bemused or confused, and some people missed out on activities because they were not clearly signposted. ‘Signs to the event were very poor. Signs at the event were terrible, one sign was pointing at a locked door! I missed out on numerous activities because of directions’ (Visitor) A few people would have preferred a ‘separation’ of science and art based activities. We will use the same signage at future iterations of the festival, but we will add to it as well as have volunteers at key places to encourage and steer people in different directions and ensure that

Page | 22 visitors engage with all three parts of the festival site (the Potbank, the Museum and the ACAVA studio space). The programme will also include a map and will be designed more creatively for ease of reading and searching for events. Presenters’ experience of activity placement and delivery The short time between acceptance of proposals and the festival led to the withdrawal of at least two proposals. On the day, interference in presentation due to background noise from adjacent activities was the main issue that affected some activities. A longer break between activities in the same room would have been helpful to allow time for activities running over time (we had provided ten minutes). A few presenters had issues with audio-visual equipment. Other presenters were satisfied with the location of their activity and the facilities. The spread of activities over the three sites made networking difficult for some sole all-day presenters and we will take this into consideration when planning the next festival. A few presenters said the experience had led them to consider more creative visual methods for their activities in the future, as well using more varied communication methods on the whole. More reliance on teamwork was also mentioned. A site visit prior to the call deadline will be offered in the future. Resource use for festival organisation and delivery This first festival was fully funded through the UKRI’s SEE-PER grant to Keele University (see above). The estimated budget was £8,000. Eventually this was exceeded by only £544 (Appendix G), despite fulfilling all presenter requests for funding and commissioning the Stoking Curiosity Piano project. This was mainly due to use of Keele’s Marketing and Communications (MAC) unit for designing the branding and festival flyer and programme, and to a reduced special fee charged by the Pot Bank venue for use of its premises and equipment and no charges for use of the Spode Museum. Keele’s professional liability insurance and the site partners’ insurances covered all insurance needs, and first aid cover and toilets were provided by the site partners. The student and public volunteers were paid for travel and subsistence. In terms of human resources, the festival majorly drew on the salaried time of the SEE- PER project’s research assistant (PER fellow), who led the organisation and management of the various aspects of the festival planning and delivery (approximately 250 hours). Furthermore, we significantly drew on the time of the two Staffordshire University Creative Communities Unit staff members, who were part of the festival steering group. They helped and advised on various organisational aspects of the festival since the start of the project, and led on its evaluation activities during and after the festival. Several other people from Keele University were involved in an advisory capacity (e.g. the pro-vice chancellor, head of partnerships and the officer for engagement and partnerships for the humanities and social sciences faculty at Keele, MAC and finance team members), and the Arts and Engagement Officer co-ordinated the risk assessment and insurance matters, as well as supporting the SEE-PER research assistant in the days following up to the festival. The members of the public on the steering group also gave varying amount of time to attend the meetings, publicise the call out and the festival, as well as volunteering at the festival itself. A number of staff at the festival site were involved in the run-up to the festival and

Page | 23 on the day itself to ensure its smooth running. Several student and staff members and other members of the public volunteered on the day (see above). Conclusion: working towards an annual event As a ‘test’ of a festival of ideas to connect local higher educational institutions with the richly divergent communities of Stoke-on-Trent, Stoking Curiosity was considered a success. The juxtapositioning of academic-led and community-led activities produced a sense of ‘connectedness’ among people as well as a renewed faith that creativity was thriving in city, that Stoke-on-Trent was a place to be. At the debrief meetings with the site partners and the city council, there was much enthusiasm for the festival becoming an annual event. The council also indicated an interest in supporting the festival through funding. With regards to the specific objectives of the festival, the academic presenters were able to present their research to new audiences and also build on their own knowledge due to the requirement of interactive methodologies for presentation and the curious questions asked by the visitors. Both Keele and Staffordshire universities are signatories of the Civic University Agreement18 and this festival can become a core activity in the universities’ efforts to work collaboratively as civic leaders in their joint local communities. In addition it could play a key role in the Keele Deale – Culture, a landmark agreement between Keele University and local partners setting out shared ambitions to realise the full potential of the University’s cultural resources and assets for the benefit of the local area. Similarly, it could have a significant place in the Connected Communities Framework of Staffordshire University. The presenters’ feedback has formed a significant part of this report, which will be distributed to the senior management at both universities to demonstrate the value of a joint public engagement event for both universities’ research and civic agendas. Community organisations, particularly those in the arts sector or those linking, for instance, health and wellbeing with the arts and creative practices, reported the festival could become an excellent interdisciplinary networking space, as well as an opportunity to link back to their publics and assess their research-based or research-related activities through a different lens. For our visitors, the festival became a space where inquisitiveness was celebrated, and the value of academic research presented was appreciated. Since most visitor feedback indicated an audience already engaged with higher education, we need to work more to attract those publics that tend to be missed out. In sum, the first Stoking Curiosity event has shown that our festival objectives and projected outcomes are realistic and achievable as we learn from what we did well and what we need to improve. Specific recommendations for future festivals 1. Work to an adequate timeline to allow the ethos of co-production to be fully realised at all key junctures of the festival process (e.g. in decisions regarding branding, designing the call out and programme).

18 https://upp-foundation.org/civic-university-agreements-list-of-signatories/

Page | 24

2. Maintain the interdisciplinary nature of the event by continuing to encourage proposals from academia as well as the community with an emphasis on audience interaction. 3. Continue to create space for development of presenters’ skills and confidence by having few and broad criteria for selection of proposals broad. 4. Ensure a wider breadth of audience. This would include inviting schools to participate in activities as well as encouraging them to send their A-level students to the festival; and a well- thought out publicity campaign within the universities and across the communities, drawing on the resources and expertise of the city council. 5. Work with the site partners to improve the ‘curiosity trail’, ensuring optimal placement of activities across the site. Acknowledgements Stoking Curiosity 2018 was funded by the UKRI’s SEE-PER project grant to Keele University. The festival team are grateful to everyone whose enthusiasm, co-operation and hard work allowed us to plan the festival, and to all our participants and visitors for making it happen. Stoking Curiosity is co-produced and co-organised by a partnership between Keele and Staffordshire Universities, the communities of Stoke-on-Trent, the Spode site communities – the Spode Heritage Museum Trust, the Potbank and ACAVA studios – and Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Page | 25

Appendices Appendix A: Stoking Curiosity steering group (2018) Name Affiliation Lotika Singha Keele University David Amigoni Keele University Marie Fowler Keele University Penny Vincent Staffordshire University Nicola Gratton Staffordshire University Diane Swift Keele University Russell Spink Keele and North Staffordshire Teacher Education and Director of S-o-T Research School Rachel Rhodes Stoke-on-Trent Council Pamela Singh Cultural Champion, Newcastle-under-Lyme Alan Gerrard Cultural Champion, Fenton Susan Clarke Artistic Director, b Arts Nichola Twemlow YMCA Carol Burt Non-Executive Director, SCIPE CIC and healthcare professional Shiya Mohan Member of the Community Action Network Paul Banks Member of the Community Action Network

Appendix B: The call for proposals What is it? Stoking Curiosity is a festival that will build and nurture a community of curious people in Stoke- on-Trent and Staffordshire. We will celebrate being inquisitive, spark ideas and get involved in research together in our communities. What is it not about? It isn't about just listening to someone else talk. It is not just a showcase of academic expertise led by Universities. Who is the festival for? Stoking Curiosity is for anyone who is curious about anything! The festival will have something for everyone: Local people - people coming along by themselves, with friends, with family Community and voluntary organisations and group Business and enterprises Students and staff from universities People of all ages and backgrounds Some events might be suitable for certain age groups When and where is it happening?

Page | 26

@ Spode Works, 32 Eleanora Street, Stoke ST4 1QD on 16 and 17 November 2018 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday How will it work - did curiosity kill the cat? The festival is a space to meet up, ask and debate questions about the world, about life, and about other interesting stuff. It is all about having a go, trying things out, sharing ideas and breaking down barriers, to make sure everyone can take part. Who is running it? The festival is co-organised by a partnership between the communities of Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke- on-Trent City Council and Keele and Staffordshire Universities Who is this call out for? Anyone who would like to encourage curiosity in others, get them interested and excited about things you know and care about, and who is prepared to have a conversation / activity about it. You might have: an idea or some research to share a burning question to ask something to show a hands-on activity for people How could you share your ideas at the Festival? Some examples are: a 6-minute talk on what makes you curious, what you are curious about, followed by a group conversation an interactive exhibit, installation, workshop or performance How will ideas be selected? The festival will be curated by the festival steering group, which is made up of local people, community organisations and staff members of Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Keele and Staffordshire Universities. We will look for proposals which clearly explain: A topic or idea How you will engage people and involve them What type of activity or conversation you want to have What makes your proposal exciting What physical stuff you want to bring What support/ space/ equipment you need What about funding? We may be able to cover some other costs, such as for stationery and bus travel. Contact us for more details. Do you have more questions? For more information, please contact …. How do you send an idea? Click on the link below to fill in a short form with your proposal. If you have trouble with the form, or if you have any questions, please email … We will send you a form or take down your ideas over the phone.

Page | 27

1. What are you curious about? 2. What makes your proposal exciting? 3. Target age group 4. Is the audience general/specific and how will you engage with them? 5. Type of activity 6. Duration of activity 7. Self-provided materials 8. Materials/support required 9. Availability 10. Any health and safety issues 11. Funding requested 12. How did you hear about the call? 13. Any other information that you would like to share with us?

What's the last date you can send your proposal? Please send in your proposal by the 5th October 2018 You are welcome to send it in any time before then.

When will you know if your proposal has been accepted? The festival steering group will get back to you no later than the 19th October 2018. We will tell you if your proposal has been accepted or not. We will give everyone brief feedback. If your proposal is accepted, we might have suggestions for you or want to talk your ideas over with you to help make the Festival programme as exciting and varied as possible, and to support you to make the most of your skills and knowledge. Appendix C: Activities at Stoking Curiosity 2018

Activity title Type of Discipline(s) Presenter’s activity background Arts and culture activities by community members and artists I see____. What do you Workshop Arts and culture Community member see? Motion painting Installation Arts and culture Artist projection Path of portrait painting Discussion Arts and culture Artist Curious drawing Workshop Arts and culture Community member Tea for your thoughts: a Consultation Arts and culture Community member creative chit chat Dust Rising; Creative Discussion and Arts and culture Artists Conversations exhibition Puppets Workshop Arts and culture Community member Stoking Curiosity piano Interactive Arts and culture Artist

Page | 28

exhibit Humanities disciplines (academic and community participation) Deborah the tank Discussion History Academic Time travel through Discussion Interdisciplinary (history, art Community member photographs and culture) Martin's Box of Discussion & Interdisciplinary (history, art Academic curiosities Exhibition and culture) Writing your life Discussion Creative writing Academic Emergency poet Interactive Interdisciplinary (creative Academic exhibit writing, health and well- being, arts and culture) Active City Stories Workshop Interdisciplinary (creative Community member writing and culture) Ask me anything Workshop Social sciences Community member Together: where next Discussion Social sciences Community member Reaching for arts, Workshop Interdisciplinary (social Community member culture and community sciences, creative arts and culture Dead Good: DIY acts of Workshop Interdisciplinary (social Academic commemoration & sciences, creative art and remembrance culture) How shall we Catch the Discussion Interdisciplinary (social Community members Dream? sciences and activism) Paper peace Installation & Interdisciplinary (social Artist workshop sciences, creative arts, culture and activism) Connecting people – Workshop Interdisciplinary (social Academics making partnerships sciences and creative art) Does voting mean Workshop Political science Community member democracy? Education and inequality Discussion Economics Academic Making Clay Workshop Interdisciplinary (economics Artist CounterCoins and art) Make your mark Workshop Interdisciplinary (education Academic and creative art) Higher education display Consultation Interdisciplinary (education Education support staff and creative art) Natural sciences (academic and community participation)

Page | 29

How can we study Discussion Psychology Academic creativity in young children? Design your way to a Workshop Interdisciplinary (psychology Academics healthy habitat and creative art) Using the 2050 Energy Interactive Geography Academic Calculator exhibit Feral futures Interactive Interdisciplinary (geography Academic & exhibit and social sciences) community member Curious plasticity Interactive Interdisciplinary (geography Academics and artists exhibit and and creative art) workshop #SpodeStories: New Consultation Interdisciplinary (geography, Community member & Narratives of Place history, arts and culture) national cultural organisation Illuminating the Internet Workshop Computer science Academic of Things, computing of the now and future Shot of science Discussion Interdisciplinary (computer Academics science and neuroscience) Cause a reaction Discussion & Interdisciplinary (chemistry Artist Workshop and art) Live screen printing Workshop Interdisciplinary (chemistry Artist demo/workshop and art) Pottery about Chemistry Workshop & Interdisciplinary (chemistry Academic Discussion and creative art) Medicine and health (academic and community participation) The quest for a life-like Interactive Interdisciplinary (bio- Academic prosthetic hand exhibit engineering) The art and science of Interactive Interdisciplinary (medicine, Healthcare making artificial legs exhibit bio-engineering and art) professionals How to avoid burn-out Consultation Health and well-being Community member My MM_SNAP Discussion Interdisciplinary (health and Academic well-being and communications and information technology) Arts on Prescription? Discussion Interdisciplinary (health and Healthcare well-being, creative arts and professional culture)

Page | 30

It’s magic … but we Discussion Interdisciplinary (health and Healthcare don't know why well-being, social sciences professional and arts and culture) Appendix D: Presenter and volunteer estimates of numbers attending some of the activities

Activity Estimated attendees Activity Estimated attendees Discussions (day 1) 4 1/2 hour Workshops 0* 5 0* 8 0* 10 4 12 6* 12 6 14 7* 15 8 18 15 Discussions (day 2) 3 4 Half/all-day workshops 10 8 15 8 18 20 25 Interactive exhibits 65** 40 110** 150** Art exhibition 260** 300** 300** All day consultation 28 50** Science talks 20 per talk * Workshop held in a room in the museum. **Total over two days.

Page | 31

Appendix E: Visitor numbers recorded No. of visitors recorded Estimated total per day Friday 150 Museum back entrance/exit 50 PB back exit 130 PB Atrium exit/entrance 132 Museum front entrance/exit 29 The Works Canteen Café entrance/exit Data not collected Saturday 150 Museum back entrance/exit 73 PB back exit 86 PB Atrium exit/entrance 133 Museum front entrance/exit Data missing The Works Canteen Café entrance/exit Data not collected

Appendix F: Visitor demographic data

Age range of visitors No. Family carer No. 0-24 12 Yes 7 25-44 11 No 14 45-64 10 65+ 0 Highest education level · No qualification 3 Gender · GCSE grades A*-C or equivalent 1 Male 11 · A Level or equivalent 2 Female 20 · Higher education 25 Other 1 · Don't know 0

Transgender Ethnicity Yes 1 White - British 23 No 16 White – Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Other 3 Mixed 1 Disability, or long term illness Asian 2 Yes 3 Black 1 No 19 Other (please specify) 1

Page | 32

Appendix G: Festival expenditure

Item Cost Printing costs £565.00 Presenter funding requests £4,120.00 Signage £320.00 Venue and equipment hire costs £3,157.20 Photography £200.00 Volunteer expenses £181.80 Total £8,544.00 .

Page | 33